Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Binyam_Mohamed#Release. Although there were those in this discussion that favoured retention on the basis of notability, very little reason was given. The sources in the article may be reliable for the purposes of establishing facts, but it has not been established that these sources confer notability. As such, the discussion tends towards deletion on the basis that notability is not inherited. In the interests of aiding our readers, I have set up a redirect to the appropriate section of the related article. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Bradley

[edit]
Yvonne Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:BIO./WP:ONEEVENT. There are six footnotes WP:LARDing the article, and none of them are significant independent coverage about the subject of the article; they are all about one of her barely-notable clients that quote her in passing, and the article is a strung-together collection of those quotes. According to the Mohamed article, Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith. I tried redirecting this to Binyam Mohamed, which this article is entirely redundant of, but an editor recreated the article. THF (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Here she is front and center on the B-B-freakin-C, in an article about a topic that has garnered immense media attention. Are you telling me you don't think that's enough? That and the profile on the Guardian? If the issue is that biographical details on the article are not backed up by the given references, I'm sure they can be removed or trimmed down. A bio doesn't need to be fully biographical per se if the intent of the article is to document notability, which I think in this case is fair to say is well established. §FreeRangeFrog 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in that cite about her, it's about her case. Merge with the existing article about the case rather than creating two redundant articles. THF (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what THF says, that cite gives the following biographical facts about her: "After six years as a regular officer in the judge-advocate general's branch of the US Air Force, Lt-Col Bradley worked for a further seven years for an organisation providing legal representation to death row inmates. She now has a law practice near Philadelphia, which she put on hold while pursuing Mr Mohamed's case. She volunteered following an appeal for military lawyers to take up the cases of Guantanamo detainees in 2005."---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that sentence when I wrote what I wrote, and I don't see anything there that contradicts my statement that the only sources mention her in passing. A sentence and a half with a couple of resume details doesn't equate to independent notability. THF (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, that's three sentences. THF doesn't have a case!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence and a half about Bradley, a sentence and a half about the Mohamed case -- and that's before we get to the frivolous position that three sentences confers notability. There's no reason that sentence and a half (or three sentences) can't be in the Mohamed article. THF (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do better than repeat what FreeRangeFrog said above: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO."---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editors of Learned Hand would disagree. If it didn't violate WP:POINT, I'd nominate Yvonne Bradley for featured article status with your endorsement as the pinnacle of Wikipedia biographies.THF (talk)
Enough said, THF, let other Wikipedia editors now decide whether Yvonne Bradley is or is not notable enough to be included as a WP:BIO.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. She is on the cusp and future cases and legal situations could easily put her into a clearly notable light, but as for right now it does not appear to be justified. JRP (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This lawyer is notable. Unionsoap (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The Guantanamo tribunals are notable. She is not. This is a disturbing trend I'm seeing, where a lawyer is getting a wikipedia article for no other reason than taking part in a case that is worthy of a wikipedia article, as though notability were contagious. Just because her case was notable does not mean that she is. The article is also loaded with POV puffery. "Promises Kept" as a section? Yow. If you stripped out the POV stuff, there would be very little left. If you then took out her WP:ONEEVENT single notable case, there'd be nothing left but her name, rank and serial number. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yvonne_Bradley&oldid=1068832229"